Amy Stevenson

The accused was charged with multiple counts of robbery, disguise with intent, and firearms offences relating to a string of armed robberies in Peel and Halton Regions.

The Crown sought to apply similar act evidence across the counts to prove identity.

The court admitted the similar act evidence for the January 2017 robberies but excluded the December 2016 incident.

The accused was found guilty of possessing a stolen licence plate and the three robberies committed on January 7, 2017, based on DNA and circumstantial evidence.

He was acquitted of the other robberies due to reasonable doubt regarding his identity as the unarmed robber.

During a first-degree murder trial, the jury asked whether there was any evidence that the accused contacted his lawyer about removing the victim from a civil lawsuit.

The Crown requested that the court mention circumstantial evidence, while the defence requested instructions to prevent reversing the burden of proof.

The trial judge applied the principles from R. v. S.(W.D.) and answered the question with a simple 'no', finding it to be accurate, complete, and fair to both sides.

During a first-degree murder trial, the Crown argued that manslaughter should not be left as an available verdict for the jury.

The court agreed, finding no air of reality to an accidental or unintentional killing, as the forensic evidence showed the victim was shot multiple times in the head, including a final contact shot to the back of the head while incapacitated.

The jury was left with verdicts of not guilty, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder.